Fsoa Safe/Persistent Standing Research Project

FSOA SAFE/PERSISTENT STANDING RESEARCH PROJECT

RESEARCHER:

JIM CHALMERS, HONORARY PRESIDENT, FOOTBALL SAFETY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

September 2011

FOOTBALL SAFETY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

ABSTRACT:

This paper describes the first piece of research carried out with members of the Football Safety Officers Association (FSOA) of their views relating to the provision of safe standing terraces in the top two Divisions of English football, namely the Premier League and the Football League Championship. This results from a Bill currently progressing through Parliament which if passed as law would allow such a provision. The research also seeks to understand whether there is any relationship between the lack of safe standing terraces in all seated stadium and persistent standing in seated areas at football grounds.

INTRODUCTION:

In his final report into the Hillsborough Stadium Disaster when 96 football fans were killed by crushing on the Leppings Lane standing terrace, Lord Justice Taylor said:

‘There is no panacea which will achieve total safety and cure all problems of behaviour and crowd control. But I am satisfied that seating does more to achieve these objectives than any other single measure’.

Taylor Report, January 1990: Para 61.

His final report contained 76 recommendations to improve safety at sports grounds. Recommendation 1 stated:

‘The Secretary of State should ensure that spectators are admitted only to seated accommodation at matches played at sports grounds designated under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 in accordance with the timing set out in recommendations 2 to 4 of this report’.

Taylor Report, January 1990: Page 76.

The timetable for this process was recommended as the start of the 1994/95 season for the top two football Divisions and the start of the 1999/2000 season for the lower two football Divisions. In 1992 the Government relaxed this requirement for the lower two Divisions providing their standing terraces met the highest standards of safety.

Government therefore did not force Clubs to replace their standing terraces with seated accommodation but instead created the offence of admitting spectators to other than seated accommodation on a match day and anyone involved in allowing this would be guilty of an offence. To put it another way if Liverpool F.C.

had wanted to retain the Kop standing terrace as a museum piece they could do so but the moment they admitted spectators onto the terrace on a match day those responsible for doing so would have been guilty of an offence.

The requirement for spectators to only be admitted to seated accommodation in our top two Divisions is enforced by a licence issued annually by the Football Licensing Authority (FLA) under the provisions of the Football Spectators Act 1989, the Act which created the FLA and gave the Authority its powers of enforcement. The FLA has also used its licensing function to ensure that standing terraces in the lower two Divisions comply with their criteria for ‘safe standing’ terraces.

Since 1991 therefore all Clubs in our top two Divisions have complied with the FLA licensing criteria in with regard to the provision of seated accommodation for spectators. Where a Club is promoted into the top two Divisions the FLA will normally grant them three seasons to meet the ‘all seated’ requirements. Dispensations will also be allowed for extended periods if a Club is building a new stadium or carrying out major redevelopment of their existing ground. As a consequence of the FLA licence therefore ‘all seated’ stadium in our top two Divisions are now regarded as the norm.

‘All seated’ stadium have however created an unexpected phenomenon, namely spectators persistently standing in seated areas. At the time the ‘all seated’ requirement was being enforced it is suggested that the Government, the FLA and the football authorities envisaged this consequence but in the debate on ‘safe standing’ areas in our top two Divisions it is suggested that this phenomenon cannot be ignored. At present the only organisation to offer a definition of what is meant by persistent standing is the FSOA and is:

‘Supporters will be considered to be persistently standing should they continue to stand after being requested to sit by a steward, police officer or agent of the Club’.

As persistent standing has become more prevalent so has the call by fans, Parliamentarians and others for the provision of safe standing areas in our top two Divisions. There are those who argue that the two issues are inexorably linked.

SAFE STANDING:

In 2007 the Football Supporters Federation (FSF) submitted their case to Government for safe standing areas to be allowed in the PL and CL in their document ‘A case for safe standing at major football stadia in England and Wales – A 21st century solution’.

The Government response of 13 November 2007 was that whilst willing to listen to all representations on this issue and being prepared to review the policy if appropriate, the Government stated it was content that the all seater policy remained appropriate at the current time and that allowing standing areas would be a retrograde step and not in the wider interest of the game. This remains the current Government policy.

Over the years various Parliamentarians have given their support for the construction of ‘safe standing’ areas in our top two Divisions. The most recent support has come from the Rt.Hon.Don Foster MP and other members of Parliament who in an early day motion Bill ‘Safe Standing (Football Stadia)’ presented before Parliament on 7 December 2010 proposed:

‘To give all football Clubs the freedom to build, or maintain existing, safe standing sections in their stadia if they choose; to establish minimum safety criteria that must be met for standing sections in football stadia; and for connected purposes.

Hansard Column 188.

The Bill is due to have its second reading on 21 October 2011.

In the Bill before Parliament and in the submission by the FSF they are not seeking to have the provision of safe standing areas made compulsory. Nor are they seeking the return of large standing terraces which prevailed at the time of the Hillsborough Stadium disaster. What they are seeking is that if a Club wants to provide safe standing areas and it is what their fans want then they should be allowed to so. They also want those Clubs promoted into the CL and PL to be allowed to retain existing standing terraces should they wish to do so.

In March 2011 the MP convened a meeting of all interested parties at which the Vice Chair of the FSOA represented the Association. Around the table there were those in favour and those against the proposal with the pros being mainly the FSF and the Parliamentarians. The football authorities are strongly opposed to safe standing areas in our top two Divisions. At the end of the meeting it was agreed that there was need to seek further evidence from interested parties and that is the current situation.

THE FSOA RESPONSE:

The FSOA considers its members to be key stake holders in this debate since whatever is decided by Government will have significant implications for those charged with the onerous responsibilities of ensuring the care, safety and provision of customer service of everyone attending football stadium on a match

day, namely the Club Safety Officer. It was recognized that whilst individual Safety Officers will have an opinion on the provision of ‘safe standing’ areas and persistent standing in seated areas no research had ever been conducted seeking the views Safety Officers on these issues. The FSOA National Executive Committee (NEC) determined therefore to institute a research project involving all Safety Officer members in the PL, CL, Leagues 1 and 2 and the National Stadium to enable the Association to make an informed decision on what the Association policy should be relating to the provision of ‘safe standing’ terraces and any relationship this may have with persistent standing in seated areas.

Jim Chalmers, the Association Honorary President was asked to conduct the research project on behalf of the Association and present the findings to the NEC.

THE RESEARCH PROJECT:

Methodology:

The FSOA NEC left the methodology for the research project solely at my discretion. I determined that the research method should be a ‘survey’ since this was the best method to obtain information which can be analysed, patterns extracted and comparisons made. For the purpose of this research project a postal questionnaire was chosen as the most suitable method of data collection. In this respect therefore the methodology adopted suited a quantitative research project since it involves the collection and presentation of numerical data from a large number of respondents which can be codified and subjected to detailed statistical testing. However within the research methodology an opportunity exists for the research respondents to include qualitative comment

Postal Survey Quationnnaire:

A Postal Survey Questionnaire (PSQ) was therefore selected as the most appropriate research instrument since it enabled the entire population (Safety Officer members of a total of 89 Premier League, Football League and National Stadium) to be reached as part of the research process. The objective was to seek a response from the Safety Officers employed at each Club and National Stadium.

Designing a good questionnaire is more difficult than might be imagined. There is a general misconception that anyone who can write plain English and has a modicum of common sense can produce a good questionnaire. This is why at a very early stage I sought the advice of Professor Steve Frosdick, an FSOA member, and took on board his counsel with regards to the PSQ design. Both I and the FSOA appreciate him giving up so much of his valuable time in assisting me throughout the research project.

The style of the PSQ is based on closed questions of fact which left little opportunity for interpretation of the questions. An opportunity was however given at the end of the PSQ for the respondent to include qualitative comment.

The research project commenced on 1 August 2011 when John Newsham, Chair of the FSOA posted a personal letter and a copy of the PSQ to the research population. His letter provided the background to the research project but did not attempt to persuade or influence Safety Officers in their responses. The research project was publicised on the FSOA website also on 1 August 2011. A copy of the letter and PSQ is attached at Appendix ‘A’.

In discussion with the Chair of the FSOA we agreed that the respondents should be given anonymity and this was made very clear in his letter to the research population. We both considered that this would encourage honesty and openness in the responses. Given that the football authorities have always totally opposed the provision of ‘safe standing’ terraces in our top two Divisions it was felt that Safety Officers might have felt inhibited in their responses if they were identified in the research project. Every PSQ therefore was given a unique reference number known only to me and at no point in this report will any Club or Safety Officer be capable of being identified.

POSTAL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS:

This section examines and discusses the data from the PSQ’s distributed to the 89 (PL), (CL) (L1) and (L2) Safety Officers. For recording purposes the data from the National Stadium is included in the PL data.

A total of 89 questionnaires were distributed and 50 were returned indicating a response rate of 56%. Academics contend that s typical first rate response, without follow up, will normally be between 20% and 40%. In two other recent FSOA surveys the response rates were 38% and 31% and so whilst the response rate of 56% is personally disappointing nevertheless in research terms it is a reasonable response rate upon which reasonable conclusions can be drawn.

The response rate by Division shows:

PL PL CL CL L1 L1 L2 L2 sent: returned: sent: returned: sent: returned: sent: returned.

22 15 23 13 21 15 23 7

*68 % *56 % *71 % *30 %

*RR – Response Rate.

The response rate is illustrated in the following figure:

Questionnaire Response by Division.

120

100

Q. Not Returned 60 Q. Returned

0 PL CL L1 L2 Totals

Given that there was never any expectation of a 100% response rate the response rates from the PL and L1 were good and in the CL exceeded 50% which is reasonable. If L2 were excluded from the data then the response rate from the other three Divisions is 65% which is good. The L2 response is very poor and the reasons for this are not known. Despite extending the response timetable, further FSOA website Forum reminders and the active involvement by the FSOA Regional Chairs to encourage responses nevertheless in L2 there was a very poor response rate. Perhaps it is the general part time role of the Safety Officers in this League or perhaps they felt that the ‘safe standing’ and ‘persistent standing’ debates were far removed from their normal match day operations and are not regarded as a problem in that League which might have influenced their failure to respond. I would however argue that the responses from the top three Divisions (65%) provide sufficient data upon which the FSOA can draw conclusions of the opinions of its members in the research project.

PSQ – QUESTION 1:

Question 1 asked the following:

‘The Rt. Hon. Don Foster, MP has tabled the Safe Standing (Football Stadia) Bill before Parliament which proposes to give all football clubs the freedom to build, or maintain existing, safe standing areas in their stadia if they choose: to establish minimum safety criteria that must be met for standing sections in football stadia; and for connected purposes’.

Do you agree or disagree with this proposal? (Please tick as appropriate)

Strongly Agree No opinion Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree

Table 1 and Figure 1 show the responses:

Table 1:

Strongly Agree No opinion Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree 4 12 2 12 20

Figure 1:

Question 1 response.

0 Strongly agree Agree No opinion Disagree Strongly disagree

With 32 of the respondents disagreeing with the proposal compared to 16 agreeing this represents an overwhelming majority who are opposed to the Private Members Bill.

In addition to the data response the views of the members opposed to the proposal can be judged from the comments made by 20 of the respondents:

Comments against the proposal:

Club Comment: Ref: SST 16. Bringing back standing terraces into our top two Divisions will take safety back 20 years. All seated stadium should be mandatory in all Leagues. It is safer to

sit than stand. SST 7. Seated stadium provides a better customer service. Other sports don’t have standing terraces. SST 75. Each year the argument goes on and we are no nearer solving the problem. Even if standing areas were provided fans would still stand elsewhere. SST 53 All seated stadium take away the chances of another Hillsborough even though fans stand in seated areas. We should not let time dilute the hard lessons of Hillsborough. SST 51. As an organisation we have build and produced many fine Stadium which are pleasant places to watch football. Safe standing would take us back. SST 5. The provision of safe standing terraces will not create a safer environment. SST 15. Any standing areas created in existing stands would cause sightline problems in adjacent seated areas. SST1. Managing safe standing is the real issue not constructing safe terracing. SST 42. What happens when the safe standing area is full? Do you only sell sufficient tickets for that area? Those that haven’t got a ticket will still try to get into the standing area and if they can’t they will just stand in other areas. SST 60. Safe standing areas would prevent the current flexibility in accommodating fans to save cost. SST 68. As a lower League Club we have seating and standing. We have no issues with using standing terraces. If we close the visitors standing terrace and only let them use the seated stand we get problems with fans standing throughout the game. SST 25. Having been involved with my Club for over 20 years operating both home and away standing terraces has never presented any specific safety issues. Since we have standing terraces there is no problem with fans standing in the seated stands. SST 28. Cost would make the provision of safe standing terraces prohibitive. Only a small percentage of fans want it and even if approved by Government this will not happen at our Club. SST 12. Difficult to answer some of the questions and I feel the questionnaire is unbalanced. SST 83. Crowding, pushing, rushing and surging are all linked to standing. Crowds congregate and breeds anti social behaviour which we have been striving to eliminate. Standing is intimidating and will discourage families to attend. SST 8. The return of safe standing in the top two Divisions would be a step backwards. We have a minority who stand but most embrace seating with the option to stand at certain times. SST 29. Safe standing must be safety driven and not demand driven. SST 76. I think there a good number of well behaved fans for whom safe

standing would not present a problem. Equally there are those who will challenge any rules and regard the standing issue as one of these causes. These people will need strong regulation to comply with whatever rules are imposed. SST 14. Creating safe standing areas will make managing the seated areas harder. The requirement to sit down in seated areas will need to be enforced even stricter than it is now. Sight lines will be affected if there are no natural areas to have these standing areas. In new build it would be impossible. For visiting fans a seated area for those who want to sit and a standing area for those who want to stand plus the standing area for home fans then I doubt t the principle of having a row and space number to stand in would be adhered to by the standing fans. Standing leads to gravitation. Those who don’t like their position or simply want to be near friends or the opposition will simply overcrowd the row. It will be impossible for medical staff to get into these standing areas as quickly as they can seated rows. There will be loss of revenue since standing takes up more space than seating. We simply cannot replace the same number of standing positions as seated areas and cannot charge as much for standing compared to seating. SST 59. Some Clubs may be able to provide standing areas whilst others may not causing even further division between Safety Officers and creating further difficulties with fans who wish to stand in seated areas. I therefore see no reason to change from the recommendation in the Taylor report and to do so will cause further difficulties for Clubs unable to provide standing areas bringing potentially even more confrontation on the terraces.

Of the 16 Safety officers who are not opposed to the proposal only 4 made comments in support of their opinion:

Comments in support of the proposal:

Club Comment: Ref: SST 4 I do not believe there will be a return to safe standing in the top two Divisions but it is right that Clubs should have the choice. SST 55 Things have changed for the better concerning safety. Better trained staff, better Safety Officers and peoples attitude is better. Should be looked at as we are today not what happened years ago. SST 26 Having some areas designated for standing may solve the problem but may not satisfy fans who might want to stand in all areas of the ground. SST 19 My agreement with this proposal has been forced on me by the behaviour of fans that persistently stand despite all my efforts over the

years to prevent this. Even standing terraces might not solve the problem of fans standing.

PSQ – QUESTION 2:

Those respondents who either strongly agreed or agreed with the proposal were asked supplementary questions 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7.

Those who strongly disagreed or disagreed with the proposal were asked supplementary questions 5, 6 and 7.

Question 2 asked the following of those who strongly agreed or disagreed with the proposal:

‘What percentage (%) of your Stadium’s capacity would you wish to see allocated for the provision of safe standing areas in the Premier League (PL) and Football League Championship (CL)?

Home%......

Away%......

Table 2 indicates the responses:

Table 2:

Home Below 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Above % 10% 50% 2 2. 3. 5. 1. 3. 1.

Away Below % 10% 3 3 4 1.

All this indicates is that if standing terraces were allowed in our top two Divisions the problem there would be in determining the % of a Stadium capacity which should be allocated for this purpose for both home and away supporters. The research clearly indicates there is no consistency on this issue amongst the Safety Officers who support the proposal.

PSQ – QUESTION 3:

Question 3 asked the following of those who strongly agreed or agreed with the proposal:

‘What should be the maximum capacity of any safe standing area in the PL and CL?’

Table 3 indicates the responses:

Table 3:

Capacity 500 1000 2000 2500 3000 4000 4500

1 1 2 1 1 1 1

Although the number of respondents to this question is low nevertheless it gives an indication of the varied opinion of Safety Officers with regards to the maximum capacity of standing terraces if this were to be permitted in our top two Divisions with a range of views between 500 and 4.500. The only measure of consistency is that the capacity should not exceed 4.500.

PSQ – QUESTION 4:

Question 4 asked the following of those who strongly agreed or agreed with the proposal:

‘Would you support safe standing areas in the PL and CL which can be converted to seated areas (the German vario-seating, as shown in the photograph below)? (Please tick answer)

YES: NO:

Table 4 and figure 4 indicate the responses:

Table 4:

YES: NO: 10 7

Figure 4:

Question 4 response.

0 Yes No

There were only 17 respondents to this question with 10 in favor of the type of vario seating illustrated in the question with 7 against. With such a low response I would suggest this does not provide enough evidence to support or otherwise whether the introduction of terraces which can be converted to seating is representative of the views of the FSOA membership.

PSQ – QUESTION 5:

Question 5 asked the following of those who strongly disagreed or disagreed with the proposal:

I DO NOT agree with the provision of safe standing areas in the PL and CL for one or more of the following reasons: (Please tick all the points that apply) a: Cost b: Our home fans do not want a return to standing areas.

c: Standing areas contribute to anti social behaviour at football grounds. d: Seating is safer than standing. e: Standing areas require more stewards. f: It is easier to manage seated areas than standing areas. g: It is easier to identify those involved in anti social behaviour in a seated area than in a standing area. h: Other – please explain (overleaf):

Table 5 and Figure 5 indicate the responses:

Table 5:

a: b: c: d: e: f: g: h:

16 2 29 28 18 34 32 2

Figure 5:

Question 5 reponse.

a b c d e g h

The main reason given against the provision of safe standing terraces in our top two Divisions is that it is easier to manage seated areas than standing areas.

This is then closely followed by it being easier to identify those involved in anti social behaviour in a seated area than in a standing area. Standing areas contribute to anti social behaviour at football grounds and seating is safer than standing also score highly with Safety Officers as their reasons against standing areas in our top two Divisions

Interestingly neither cost nor stewarding is regarded as significant factors against the proposal. The area which scored the lowest was that home fans do not want a return to standing areas which of course might be the opposite from a fan perspective.

PSQ – QUESTION 6:

Question 6 asked all respondents the following question:

There is an argument which says that persistent standing in seated areas is linked to the call for safe standing areas in the PL and CL.

Do you: (Please tick as appropriate)

Strongly Agree. No opinion. Disagree. Strongly Agree. Disagree.

Table 6 and Figure 6 indicate the responses:

Table 6

Strongly Agree. No opinion. Disagree. Strongly Agree. Disagree.

4 17 8 16 5

Figure 6:

Question 6 response.

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Strongly agree Agree No opinion Disagree Strongly disagree

With 8 respondents not having an opinion the Safety Officer response is equally divided on this question with 21 agreeing there is a link whilst 21 do not consider there is such a link.

PSQ- QUESTION 7:

Question 7 asked all respondents the following question:

Do you consider that providing safe standing areas in the PL and CL will solve the problem of persistent standing in seated areas in these Divisions? (Please tick the appropriate box)

YES: NO:

Table 7 and Figure 7 indicate the responses:

Table 7:

YES: NO:

13 37

Figure 7:

Question 7 response.

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Yes No

The majority of Safety Officer respondents do not consider that the provision of standing terraces in our top two Divisions will resolve the problem of fans persistently standing in seated areas at football Stadium.

Only 8 respondents passed comment regarding issues surrounding the debate of persistent standing in seated areas. As the following indicates there are mixed views regarding the scale of the problem and whether it is capable of resolution.

Club Comments: Ref: SST 7. I do not believe persistent standing is unsafe provided gangways and aisles are kept clear. SST 53. We have lost the battle with persistent standing over the seasons with huge numbers now standing. SST 51. There is a need to educate fans who persistently stand even though the view from the seat is very good. SST 45. It is difficult for Clubs in the lower Leagues to enforce no standing when large numbers of fans in the PL are seen standing during televised games. There appears to be one rule for the bigger Clubs whose fans get away with standing whilst the smaller Clubs get penalised. SST 5. The proposal for standing terraces will be less well received than people think with fans still wanting top stand in adjacent seated areas. SST 15. The issues of persistent standing are caused by a minority with the majority only standing because they can’t see the game. SST 79. Those who persistently stand also pursue other forms of

unacceptable behaviour and whether they group together in seats or standing is largely irrelevant. SST 29. Persistent standing is seen by some to demonstrate a challenge to authority. If there is a perception of uncooperative people ‘winning’ we must consider ‘what next’?

CONCLUSIONS:

Although only 50 of the 89 potential research respondents returned the questionnaire nevertheless in research terms it is a reasonable response rate upon which the Football Safety Officers Association National Executive Committee can draw some conclusions regarding the issues of ‘safe’ and ‘persistent standing’ and this was the main reason for the research project.

It is clear from the research that there is a preponderous view amongst the Safety Officers who took part in the research project (32 or 64%) that they are totally opposed to the current Private Members Bill which if passed would allow for the provision of safe standing terraces in our top two Divisions. The NEC will undoubtedly take this into consideration in formulating the FSOA policy response to the Bill.

What however is interesting is that 16 or 30% of the Safety Officer respondents agreed with the proposal which will no doubt give some degree of comfort to those Parliamentarians and the Football Supporters Federation who strongly support the provision of safe standing terraces in our top two Divisions.

What the research response clearly indicates in questions 2 and 3 is that even if the Bill is successful the problem there will be in determining the percentage of a Stadium capacity which would be allocated for the provision of safe standing terraces for home and away supporters and the maximum capacity of such safe standing areas. With regards to percentages of capacities the views ranged between below 10% to over 50%. There will be similar problem in determining the safe capacities of any standing terraces allowed in the top two Divisions with Safety Officers suggesting capacities ranging between 500 and 4.500. There was only one area of agreement amongst respondents to this question and that was the maximum capacity of any safe standing terrace should not exceed 4.500.

There was a very low response rate to Question 4 regarding the provision of a type of vario seating used in some German Stadium. However of the 16 who did respond the majority, 10, were in favour of such a scheme of standing/seated conversion capability. I do not consider however that such a low response rate can be used as evidence in support of any scheme of conversion standing/seating type terracing.

The responses to Question 5 certainly provide some firm conclusions which can be drawn as to why Safety Officers disagree with the provision of safe standing

areas in our top two Divisions. This coupled with the qualitative responses indicate the strength of opposition to the safe standing proposals.

It is very interesting that in Question 6 with regards to the argument that persistent standing in seated areas is linked to the proposal for safe standing areas in our top two Divisions that Safety Officers are equally divided in their responses. This means no firm conclusions can be drawn as to whether there is any such relationship between persistent standing in seated areas and the call for standing terraces in our top two Divisions.

There is clear evidence from the responses to Question 7 both in the data and qualitative responses in that the majority of Safety Officer respondents do not consider that the provision of safe standing areas in our top two Divisions will solve the problem of persistent standing in seated areas in Stadium in these Divisions.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1: The Chair and members of the Football Safety Officers Association National Executive Committee take account of the research project responses in determining future FSOA policy with regards to ‘Safe Standing’ and ‘Persistent Standing’ issues.

2: The research project is made available on the public section of the FSOA website after the Daventry Conference.

3: Our Vice Chair present the findings of the research project at the next meeting of the to the Football Licensing Authority Safety Committee and in any further ‘round table’ meetings with the Rt.Hon. Don Foster, M.P.

Jim Chalmers. FSOA Honorary President.